When are identity‐based groups harmful to democracy? Victimized majority narratives and Muslim groups in Indonesia

Abstract When are identity‐based groups harmful to democracy? We argue that identity‐based groups become harmful to democracy when they engage in and promote victimized majority narratives—portraying the majority as being removed from power and sidelined by minority groups. We support this argument through a mixed‐method approach and by analyzing Muslim groups in Indonesia. Through interviews with leaders of moderate and hardliner Muslim groups, we show that the narratives are more prevalent in the latter than the former type of groups, even though the groups may hold similar views on other issues such as the question of heterodoxy and blasphemy. We then test this argument at the individual level using original panel data of identifiers of Muslim groups, showing that identifying with hardliner groups—but not the moderate groups—correlates with higher support for political Islam, higher religious intolerance, and higher support for religious violence.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Political Psychology
Published
2026-05-27
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.70159
Primary Topic
Asian Studies and History
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

When are identity‐based groups harmful to democracy? Victimized majority narratives and Muslim groups in Indonesia

Jessica Soedirgo, Nathanael Gratias Sumaktoyo
Political Psychology
Asian Studies and History
article

When are identity‐based groups harmful to democracy? Victimized majority narratives and Muslim groups in Indonesia

Jessica Soedirgo, Nathanael Gratias Sumaktoyo
article en

Abstract

Abstract When are identity‐based groups harmful to democracy? We argue that identity‐based groups become harmful to democracy when they engage in and promote victimized majority narratives—portraying the majority as being removed from power and sidelined by minority groups. We support this argument through a mixed‐method approach and by analyzing Muslim groups in Indonesia. Through interviews with leaders of moderate and hardliner Muslim groups, we show that the narratives are more prevalent in the latter than the former type of groups, even though the groups may hold similar views on other issues such as the question of heterodoxy and blasphemy. We then test this argument at the individual level using original panel data of identifiers of Muslim groups, showing that identifying with hardliner groups—but not the moderate groups—correlates with higher support for political Islam, higher religious intolerance, and higher support for religious violence.

Political PsychologyVol. 47(4)
National University of Singapore (SG), German Institute for Global and Area Studies (DE), University of Amsterdam (NL)
Peace, Justice and strong institutions
Openalex Percentile: Top 3%
Asian Studies and History
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.